If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Many companies have their own internal-use apps that will be compiled and run on whatever their preferred platform happens to be ..... but I think it's going overboard to say that it's completely senseless or irrelevant.

Most of the results are from compiler benchmarks which depend mostly on the quality of generated code by the compiler, but not a lot on other factors.
Its like using SuperPI to compare Windows95 to Windows-7. Sure qou'll get some numbers out, but you're not really benchmarking the operating system.

I am not saying compiler performance is irrelevant, in the contrary I think the compiler is a critical part. Its just not the only component, and hasn't a whole lot to do with the operating system.

Fixed the O_SYNC problem?

It is easy to get good performance when you cheat and make fast, unsafe hacks. Have they yet fixed those problems in Linux?

http://milek.blogspot.com/2010/12/li...-barriers.html
"This is really scary. I wonder how many developers knew about it especially when coding for Linux when data safety was paramount. Sometimes it feels that some Linux developers are coding to win benchmarks and do not necessarily care about data safety, correctness and standards like POSIX. What is even worse is that some of them don't even bother to tell you about it in official documentation (at least the O_SYNC/O_DSYNC issue is documented in the man page now)."

It is easy to get good performance when you cheat and make fast, unsafe hacks. Have they yet fixed those problems in Linux?

http://milek.blogspot.com/2010/12/li...-barriers.html
"This is really scary. I wonder how many developers knew about it especially when coding for Linux when data safety was paramount. Sometimes it feels that some Linux developers are coding to win benchmarks and do not necessarily care about data safety, correctness and standards like POSIX. What is even worse is that some of them don't even bother to tell you about it in official documentation (at least the O_SYNC/O_DSYNC issue is documented in the man page now)."

How about just reading the comments under the blog post you're actually linking to? The answer is right there. But then again, despite formulating this post as a question, you're not really posting this link to get an an answer - you're doing it because you think you're scoring points in your misguided "praise Solaris by badmouthing Linux" crusade. As usual, you just manage to make yourself look bad by obviously not actually understanding the technical content of the posts you're linking to, and furthermore by "asking" something that is already answered in the commentary in the very link you posted.

Nonetheless, to summarize here, since you're too lazy to read your own links: yes, O_SYNC is now POSIX compliant in Linux.

Adding to this, and making a couple of points that weren't made in the commentary to the above blog post:

1. O_SYNC == O_DSYNC really was not that big a deal. The worst that could happen is that if your system crashes, you MIGHT end up with timestamps for a file not being updated. That's all. The reason it took so long to get fixed was pretty much that almost no one cared. Incidentally, AIX also defines O_SYNC = O_DSYNC by default, though this can be changed by setting an environment variable.

2. For those who absolutely needed it, proper O_SYNC was available in Linux before, as well, by picking the right filesystem (xfs) with the osyncisosync mount option.

In closing, as I've tried to point out before, both Solaris and Linux are excellent systems, but neither are perfect. It's easy enough to dig up ugly bugs and deficiencies in either, if you deliberately go looking for it. This is the only reason that I include this link:

Does this somehow "prove" that Solaris/ZFS sucks? Of course not - no more than your link "proves" anything about Linux. However, you may want to be a bit more careful about throwing this particular alarmist blog post around, since anyone choosing to play the "dueling OS bugs" game can so easily counter this particular post with a more recent and uglier flaw in the OS/Filesystem you put so much passion into promoting.

But that's likely the case for just about any such post/bug reference in either direction, and that, in fact, was my main point.

If you look at the dates, I posted my link early. Back then there were no relevant comments from linux people on the link, all of the relevant comments are new. Just look at the date and you will see. In short, there were no sane comments when I posted my link. The comments you refer to, are new.

But that is not the problem. The problem is that Linux deliberately cuts corners and cheat. THAT is a problem. Linux does not obey standards but cheats to get good benchmarks. Not following standards is a bad thing.

Then you show a post where ZFS had a problem. So? That problem is considered as a bug, and it is not a design choice by ZFS engineers. ZFS is for enterprise. ZFS must adhere to Enterprise standards to provide data integrity. If ZFS does not, it is considered as a bug. Not at an active design choice.

The main point is that Linux - by design - cheats and cuts corners. ZFS had a bug, everybody has bugs. Linux has lots of bugs, which you are surely aware of. But Solaris is not cheating by design.

To summarize: Linux - by design - cheats and dont follow standards to get good benchmarks. Solaris follows standards and does not cheat (but Solaris might have bugs). FYI, Linux also has bugs.

Regarding my bad mouthing of Linux, so what? It pisses me off when Linux people bad mouthes Solaris. So I just balance them. If the Linux fanbois stopped bad mouth Solaris, I would also stop. I show a re-action. Not action. Linux people acts - I re-act on their actions. Is that a problem that I react on Linux fanboys badmouthing of Solaris?

Don't care about Kebabbert, because it's a known troll from osnews.com. He can't stand slowlaris is nearly dead. Even Oracle starts focusing on Linux on sparcs, so obsolete slowlaris will simply go away.

Don't care about Kebabbert, because it's a known troll from osnews.com. He can't stand slowlaris is nearly dead.

First of all, Solaris is faster than Linux on big work loads, I have showed you benchmarks which proves this. For instance SAP. Linux used faster cores, and faster RAM, and still was slower. That is due to bad scaling from Linux, as we know.

Originally Posted by kraftman

Even Oracle starts focusing on Linux on sparcs, so obsolete slowlaris will simply go away.

While he expects to see Solaris primarily at the high end, it will go all the way down to the desktop for development. Nevertheless, he stressed that the high end is the home for Solaris, which could be a cloud of x86 or SUN SPARC machines.

"We think it will be a long time before Linux ever catches up," Ellison said."

And, as I have proved, Linux cheats and does not obey standards, just to win some benchmarks. This makes Linux buggy and does not protect your file data, as I have shown links from researchers about Linux filesystems might corrupt your data. ZFS protects your data.

The Linux design choices makes it difficult for Linux to protect file data, just read the link I posted and you will see. That is one of the problems why Linux people are desperate after Solaris tech, such as DTrace and ZFS.

It seems to me that Oracle is prioritizing Solaris above Linux here. Larry says Solaris is the best Unix, and they are working on making Linux better.

"...Oracle is planning to take over the world. Or, at the very least, the server OS world. That's the logical conclusion to reach after hearing the recent comments of Larry Ellison, Oracle's bombastic CEO. "Solaris is clearly the No. 1 Unix, and we're working very hard at making Oracle Enterprise Linux the number one Linux,..." http://www.serverwatch.com/trends/ar...Domination.htm